![]() | Hurricane Kyle (2002) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 26, 2011. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
|
First, I put it at Mid importance due to its longevity. OK, I'll just say it. This article is pretty disorganized, IMO. While the inline sources is great, and the writing is good, the structure could be better. Some places go into too much detail, while others don't go far enough. Let's start with the storm history. What happened with the non-tropical low before it became Kyle? Most storm articles give a little pre-history. Phrases like how the NHC didn't upgrade Kyle to a hurricane operationally 6 hours after best track... is that really that important? Wouldn't it just be easier to say something like, "Kyle continued to intensify, and became a hurricane at 1200 UTC September 25, though operationally it was not upgraded until 6 hours later", rather than giving it three sentences? I personally don't like phrases like "then", "however", and "yet another comeback". Could you fix it with sentences that aren't so jumpy? Why was the storm unable to sustain itself after its second peak? Shouldn't there be a records section? Kyle was the only storm, IIRC, that became a TS five times, as well as one of the longest storms in history. Maybe some of the more important forecasting inaccuracies could be merged into the storm history. For preparations and impact, if you don't have too much preparations, shouldn't you separate it by area (Bermuda section with preps and impact, then southeast United States)? More info is also needed in the impact section. You barely mention the tornado outbreak in South Carolina. Hurricanehink ( talk) 12:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Its a Low importance, referring to the discussion on Talk:Hurricane Linda (1997). Its not number 1 longest and minor impact => low.-- Nilfanion ( talk) 12:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
According to Talk:List of notable tropical cyclones, this is not the third longest lived storm. Rmhermen 18:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Very good job with this article. It has passed the GA article criteria for comprehensiveness, images, references, etc. Hello32020 ( talk) 21:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
This claim, included in the extract to go onto the main page, seems severely under-sourced. The only comment about it in the cited reference is the remnants of Kyle were absorbed into a strong extratropical cyclone southwest of the British Isles. No mention of death caused. Is there evidence of shipping authorities or the UK Health and Safety Executive positing this as a direct cause of a death? Kevin McE ( talk) 19:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Hurricane Kyle (2002)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Speedy FAC. Make it 8/8. Titoxd( ?!? - cool stuff) 09:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC) |
Substituted at 18:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Hurricane Kyle (2002). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() | Hurricane Kyle (2002) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 26, 2011. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
|
First, I put it at Mid importance due to its longevity. OK, I'll just say it. This article is pretty disorganized, IMO. While the inline sources is great, and the writing is good, the structure could be better. Some places go into too much detail, while others don't go far enough. Let's start with the storm history. What happened with the non-tropical low before it became Kyle? Most storm articles give a little pre-history. Phrases like how the NHC didn't upgrade Kyle to a hurricane operationally 6 hours after best track... is that really that important? Wouldn't it just be easier to say something like, "Kyle continued to intensify, and became a hurricane at 1200 UTC September 25, though operationally it was not upgraded until 6 hours later", rather than giving it three sentences? I personally don't like phrases like "then", "however", and "yet another comeback". Could you fix it with sentences that aren't so jumpy? Why was the storm unable to sustain itself after its second peak? Shouldn't there be a records section? Kyle was the only storm, IIRC, that became a TS five times, as well as one of the longest storms in history. Maybe some of the more important forecasting inaccuracies could be merged into the storm history. For preparations and impact, if you don't have too much preparations, shouldn't you separate it by area (Bermuda section with preps and impact, then southeast United States)? More info is also needed in the impact section. You barely mention the tornado outbreak in South Carolina. Hurricanehink ( talk) 12:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Its a Low importance, referring to the discussion on Talk:Hurricane Linda (1997). Its not number 1 longest and minor impact => low.-- Nilfanion ( talk) 12:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
According to Talk:List of notable tropical cyclones, this is not the third longest lived storm. Rmhermen 18:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Very good job with this article. It has passed the GA article criteria for comprehensiveness, images, references, etc. Hello32020 ( talk) 21:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
This claim, included in the extract to go onto the main page, seems severely under-sourced. The only comment about it in the cited reference is the remnants of Kyle were absorbed into a strong extratropical cyclone southwest of the British Isles. No mention of death caused. Is there evidence of shipping authorities or the UK Health and Safety Executive positing this as a direct cause of a death? Kevin McE ( talk) 19:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Hurricane Kyle (2002)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Speedy FAC. Make it 8/8. Titoxd( ?!? - cool stuff) 09:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC) |
Substituted at 18:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Hurricane Kyle (2002). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)